Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Pretty much. This H1-B VISA push is called "in-sourcing" by the trade; you bring a bunch of folks from overseas and then you pay them less than what the local talent would want and you push the market down. Then you can hire local talent as well at a discount.
If a large number of major corporations want something you'd be right to be suspicious.

The great thing about it is that once you artificially drive down wages with H1B's, then you get to advertise more fake jobs for those low wages. And when you don't get enough applicants, you complain that you need even *MORE* H1B visas, driving down wages even more. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

That's precisely the point – there is no "natural" state of what things "should" be, since the entire structure of the "free market" is itself the product of government intervention. (Multinational corporations are a direct creation of government, they sure as hell don't exist in a state of nature. Same with IP laws. And in a state of nature, you only control as much property as you and your friends/family can defend with armed force.) So the question then becomes: why should we structure the market to benefit billionaires like Zuckerberg instead of ordinary working programmers?

Multinational corporations are a direct creation of government, they sure as hell don't exist in a state of nature.

that's true only insofar as the government funded most of the information age (this is either because the market wasn't smart enough to do it by itself, or because there's a nefarious plot to force people to rely on the state, depending on your ideology).

in a world with as much communication technology as we have now, multinational corporations are sure as shit ``natural."

The sworn purpose of the United States government is to act in the best interest of its citizens and their protection. Letting a company the size of Facebook effectively design immigration policy to the disadvantage of US citizens is actively working against that purpose. That's fraud.

The sworn purpose of the United States government is to act in the best interest of its citizens and their protection.

They are acting in the best interest of the citizens. They just aren't acting in your best interest. Letting in more techies is good for America. There are still some losers, such as techie citizens that have to compete, but it is still a win for the overall economy. Face it: you belong to a special interest group that is trying to get the government to act on your behalf by reducing competition, at the expense of the country as a whole.

The problem is that this pattern isn't limited to one sector of the economy; it's everywhere.

Perhaps in isolation you could say "favor capital over labor in the hi-tech sector to drive down wages to make it cheaper for everyone else --- it's worth paying management $1M more, if they can cut wages by $2M." The problem is, at the same time, it's "favor capital over labor to drive down wages in manufacturing"; "favor capital over labor to drive down wages in retail"; "favor capital over labor to drive down wages in service industries"; etc. --- at the end of the day, the "everyone else" you're trying to "help" can't afford even the cheaper services, because they've lost their own wages and/or jobs. The only people who benefit are the tiny capital/management class, who "earn" their wages for taking money away from everyone else. Unless you look at the system as a whole --- where it's obvious that slashing wages for the majority of people doesn't help the majority of people --- you'll be fooled into your addled style of thinking.

The best interest of US citizens would be to make sure that OUR citizens filled those spots at citizen market rates....and ONLY after that supply is expended, do we allow limited immigrant workers in.

You'd think the govt would want US citizens to get the jobs first...since they live here pay taxes here, and spend money here (rather than sending $$'s home to relatives overseas or across the border).

The best interest of US citizens would be to make sure that OUR citizens filled those spots at citizen market rates

You are repeating the Lump of Labor Fallacy [wikipedia.org]. An economy is not a zero-sum-game with a fixed number of jobs to be "filled". If more workers are available, business will expand. As the workers set up households and buy products, they generate more jobs in other industries. Immigrants don't "steal" jobs, because the economy expands. This is not just theory. When Poland and other central European countries were admitted to the EU, most countries in Western Europe enacted restrictions to keep them from "stealing" jobs. Only Britain and Sweden allowed them to come and work. Over the following years, Britain and Sweden had lower unemployment than the more restrictive countries.

I don't disagree with the problems the H1B causes for citizens that you cite. However, the secondary intent of the program is to entice bright foreigners to come work in the U.S., and eventually become U.S. citizens. i.e. The reverse of brain drain - bring the best and brightest in the world into the U.S. and put them on the path of becoming citizens. Once they're citizens, they'll raise the productivity of the country more than an average citizen, and increase the tax base (so everyone benefits from their presence).

So it's not simply a matter of whether or not people here on a H1B take away jobs from current citizens. Its whether the long-term good they could do by becoming citizens outweighs the short-term harm they do by taking jobs away from current citizens. If you have no H1Bs, you'll actually be harming the country by losing bright, talented citizens to other countries with H1B-like incentive visas. OTOH, too many H1Bs and the lingering effects of the short-term harm outweigh the good long-term effects.

Somewhere in between is a happy medium where the long-term good most outweighs the short-term harm. What's under debate is where exactly that maximum lies. Unfortunately, if the government only listens to the immediate beneficiaries of the H1B program (the companies which are getting cheap foreign skilled labor) and not enough to unemployed citizen professionals, it will tend to err on the side of issuing too many H1Bs.

No, I don't think so. I believe these companies when they say that they can't find hard working native talent because, if you think about it, it's a pain to have to hire someone from another country. It's not like ordering a pizza, there's effort involved. That's a pretty bad statement when a company is willing to go through that hassle because it's easier than dealing with native workers. And I work in corporate America myself, I can tell you that people who like to think of themselves as hard working

The U.S. is the ONLY economy in the world where government *doesn't* work to make sure that their own citizens are first in line for jobs. Just try to emigrate to the U.K. Try to emigrate to Canada.

Somehow we have a majority of people that are willing to parrot the corporate position on issues. Protecting your citizen's job first is not "protectionism," it's doing what the god damned government is SUPPOSED to do.

We've had three decades of subtle propaganda that misrepresents corporate interests as American interests. Corporate america has shifted from treating employees as assets to treating them as liabilities. Our corporate law forces corporations to seek short term profits uber alles, bringing in cheaper foreign labor is just one aspect of that. The entire scheme is short-sighted.

I do think the country owes me (as someone who was born here and spent nearly 50 years paying taxes, working, investing in my own country and infrastructure) more than they owe some disconnected foreigner who comes here for short-term gains and then goes back home again.

the 'free market' has not shown itself to be self policing so the gov HAS to step in and ensure fairness to the people who LIVE here.

yes, it owes us that. we paid into the system in many ways and its only right we get first dibs on the pay-outs. that includes having a decent job that can pay the bills and keep us in the standard of living that we have EARNED. yes, earned. this is not asking for any handouts!

Elaborate please? I ask because my wife did exactly that (emigrated from the US to Canada).

She would argue that Canadian immigration policy is much more even handed (score enough points, get in). This is especially true for US professionals (look up the NAFTA TN-1 visa). There are also guest worker programs.

Once you are a perm resident, there are two requirements:

1) Don't do anything deportable2) Spend enough time in Canada, rather then somewhere else.

As someone living in the US on an H4 (spouse of an H1-B), I call bullshit. Have you ever been through the process of getting an H1-B?

The company had to post the job opening in at least 3 different places (local newspaper, job search site and a 3rd I can't remember) for 3 months and justify why the US applicants that replied where not suited for the job. After that, they had to file a Labor Condition Application that states the H1-B will receive the same average wage for the area of work as a US resident doing the same job, and that they will give to the H1-B exactly the same benefits as they're giving their US residents workers. The purpose of this is to guarantee that by hiring an H1-B they are not lowering the US residents standards.

It costs MORE time and money (at a minimum they have filing fees and attorney's fees) for a company to get an H1-B than it costs to get a US resident. Not that I find that wrong, mind you, it's just that saying the US isn't protectionist is a big fat lie.

Sorry but I have been in the hiring managers position and told by corporate that they wanted H1Bs 'cuase they were cheaper, could not run off to a better paying job, and could be shorted on benefits. The trick is to write the ad and have some 'hook' in it so that you can turn down a qualified citizen or have a way in the interview process to 'receive the impression' the citizen would not be a team play, over/under qualified, or not just a good fit. If the H1B worker stays for even half the time of their v

Agreed, the US is definitely one of, if not the hardest country to migrate to even as a skilled worker.

America suffers from a lot of nationalism anyway, stemming largely from the ideology of American exceptionalism, but I can't help but think that as an outsider a lot of H1B complaints stem from that nationalism.

The H-1B visa is a work permit with Dual intent [wikipedia.org]. This means that a temporary worker is allowed to have immigrant intent.

If that worker has immigrant intentions, he will have to convince his employer to file a petition for a non-immigrant worker where (in most cases), the employer has to prove that it is unable to find American workers for the job (also known as PERM [wikipedia.org]).

Once that is approved, the worker will be placed in a queue [state.gov], as the number of immigrant visas (or green cards) are limited per fiscal year

"Given all this, why do we kick out the more than 40% of math and science graduate students who are not US citizens after educating them?"

Wait a sec...*who* educated them? Does the US gov't typically pay a foreign student's tuition, or do they have to either pay their own way or manage a grant/scholarship? My guess would be the latter case would be the overwhelming majority, with the only role of gov't in most cases being to grant a student visa. It's one

International undergrad students tend to pay themselves. Grad students, especially in tech, tend to have grad school grants. Until recently they expected to go home first before reapplying for jobs. Or hope to find an employer that would pay the $30K or so for bypass paperwork. But recently a small number of visas are for immediate graduates. Tech companies want any such limit removed.

You have some incorrect information here.

International students indeed pay themselves. They always pay out-of-state rate and cannot qualify for state resident status no matter how many years they lived there. Some have grants or scholarships or TA/GA positions in grad school, just like any other grad student.

Some students come here on J-1 visas and they are required to go back home for certain time before coming back.

Most students come on a regular F-1 visa. They are not required to go back to be able to change their status.

Not entirely sure about J-1 students, but F-1 students are not allowed to work outside of campus. They are allowed to work on campus for 20 hours per week. Usually it is a minimum wage job.

All of the foreign students get about year and half of OPT (Optional Practical Training), which basically allows them to work to gain some experience.After OPT, J-1 students go home and F-1 students try to get a job and H1-B visa to continue working. H1-B is issued for 2-3 years and can be renewed up to maximum of 6 years. Before H1-B expires, students (now workers) try to apply for Green Card. It is a lengthy process - could be several years. None of the experience gained on the current job can be used to justify Green Card application.

International students indeed pay themselves. They always pay out-of-state rate and cannot qualify for state resident status no matter how many years they lived there.

You have some incorrect information here. When I went to grad school, any grad student who was getting stipend money was considered in-state for tuition costs. The thought was, we're paying them a stipend so they can live while going to school, and if we charge them out of state rates we'll just have to increase the stipend so they can live. It's foolish to charge a higher tuition rate and then just hand them more money to cover it. That may have changed, but it does cancel the claim "they always".

As I know people on H1B can't be paid less than their US colleagues because you wouldn't be able to get H1B if they offer you smaller salary than average for this position.

(1) There is literally zero dollars allocated in the federal budget for enforcement of that provision.

(2) That provision is full of loopholes. Like this one:

Note that section (p) requires that the Department of Labor set up four prevailing wage levels based upon skill but section (n) only requires a prevailing wage for occupation and location. There is no statutory requirement that the employer pick the skill level that matches the employee.

Let's see this in action. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the mean wage for a programmer in Charlotte, NC is $73,965. But the level 1 prevailing wage is $50,170. Most prevailing wage claims on H-1B applications use the level 1 wage driving down the cost of labor in this instance by nearly a third.What Americans don't know about H-1B visas could hurt us all [cringely.com]

An H1B can't be paid less than the prevailing wage for a position of the same type.

I wish it was that way, but lawyers at my company were much smarter than I was, or maybe they had more balls. I was paid below the prevailing wage on the approved PERM application. Before it got approved and after - nothing changed.

If all of that were true, then CEOs wouldn't be able to extort incomes hundreds of times greater than the average workers even when they are proven failures. Such people aren't "more productive", they simply have better friends.

I think that if you try and do a reverse H1-B to India, you'll find that they aren't quite as welcoming to people who would displace domestic workers.

In short, "true value" is a myth. Wage demands versus what employers offer is a tug-of-war. Where positions (so-called value) continually change, but most of the strength is usually on the employer side. Programs such as H1-B are generally viewed as handing yet one more advantage to the stronger side, which is why emotion is so high.

If these people are truly needed in the United States, then get rid of H1B indentured servitude. H1Bs may only work for the company that brings them here and that company is free to threaten them - "we'll send you back" type stuff.

If they are really needed as much as they are portrayed (I honestly have no idea), then let them have a green card so that they can go to other businesses within the border.

If that happened, then their prices would come up and - gasp - they'd no longer be needed.

Choice quotes from a recent article on H1B visas I read over at Cringley...

"There is a misconception about the H-1B program that it was designed to allow companies to import workers with unique talents. There has long been a visa program for exactly that purpose. The O (for outstanding) visa program is for importing geniuses and nothing else. Interestingly enough, the O visa program has no quotas. So when Bill Gates complained about not being able to import enough top technical people for Microsoft, he wasn’t talking about geniuses, just normal coders."

and on later......

"Last year, nearly half of the H-1B visas went to companies like Infosys and Wipro, not marquee companies like Google and Microsoft. Companies such as Infosys are the workhorses of Silicon Valley, large IT firms that churn out the industry’s unglamorous connective tissue: things like boilerplate coding, user support, and network maintenance.

So, why does the US need to import labor for this lower-skilled work? Matloff says it has to do with wages and immobility. He argues that since employers sponsor H-1Bs visas, foreigners have a limited ability to negotiate higher salaries or switch jobs. If they do manage to change employers, it means they must restart any green card applications. Matloff says these realities “handcuff” H-1B visa holders to their employers. "

and further on...

"There are a number of common misunderstandings about the H-1B program, the first of which is its size. H-1B quotas are set by Congress and vary from 65,000 to 190,000 per year. While that would seem to limit the impact of the program on a nation of 300+ million, H-1B is way bigger than you think because each visa lasts for three years and can be extended for another three years after that.

At any moment, then, there are about 700,000 H-1B visa holders working in the USA.

Most of these H-1B visa holders work in Information Technology (IT) and most of those come from India. There are about 500,000 IT workers in the USA holding H-1B visas. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are about 2.5 million IT workers in America. So approximately 20 percent of the domestic IT workforce isn’t domestic at all, but imported on H-1B visas."

That basically confirms what I've been saying repeatedly on Slashdot. Most of those who complain about H-1B advocates who say there isn't enough talent are in theoretical fields like CS. They have very little to no practical experience.

The typical response I get from them is "yeah well if they simply hired me and let me read some books for a few months then I'll be fine." Wrong answer. Employers want people who already have hands on experience with real equipment. Trade schools are great for that. Your prob

Perhaps Zuckerberg could explain what the indienous population of the US is not capable of knowing that immigrants know. If this is the "key to a future knowledge-based economy", what is it I cannot know as a US citizen that you need, Mr Zuckerberg?

Perhaps Zuckerberg could explain what the indienous population of the US is not capable of knowing that immigrants know. If this is the "key to a future knowledge-based economy", what is it I cannot know as a US citizen that you need, Mr Zuckerberg?

Americans are happy to do STEM degrees when they lead to lots of high paying jobs with good job security. Bring back long term contracts for STEM employees at high wages and watch how quickly Americans churn out STEM degrees.

You don't think the $200,000+ total compensation packages that companies like Facebook routinely offer (including to H-1B holders, BTW) are "high paying" enough or "secure" enough?

While it's true that the H-1B system is heavily abused, and that most of the visas probably shouldn't be granted, Facebook is not simply lobbying for more H-1Bs. They're lobbying for more more comprehensive reform that would allow more legitimate high skilled workers into the country, and fewer illegitimate ones. There needs to be a visa for truly high end employees. Facebook probably only hires people in the top 1%, and H-1B lumps them into the same category as people in the 50th percentile.

In the 8 years I've been in Silicon Valley, the prevailing wage for software engineers at top companies has increased by more than 50%. To suggest that there aren't jobs at companies like Facebook and Google and Apple for high-skilled American workers is crazy. How high would our salaries have to rise for you to admit there's a shortage? When we're being paid like professional athletes?

I see no reason as an American that I should persue economic policies that make me a "commodity". Whether to have free trade in labor or no trade in labor is a matter of government policy. And last time I looked I lived in a democracy. In so far as free trade benefits me, then fine. But if the goal is to reduce my wages then screw trade.

And no your 8 old year or you for that matter can't code me under the table.

I can't help but notice that you're attacking a technical field of which you don't seem to be a member. It's pretty noble of you to sell out that job sector because you seem to have chosen an engineering field with less demand. It is quite apparent that you are envious of their demand. You'd think that when demand outstrips supply that the wages should actually increase. It would be a worker's market. The corporations are undercutting that market by importing cheap labor.

Also if it was true that your 8-year old could perform the same job then you'd think these same corporations would lower the educational requirements and pay them a much lower salary appropriate for their low-skill position. Of course, we all know this isn't the case. The corporations are asking for "highly skilled" labor with educational requirements therefore they should pay market price for that labor especially to makeup the out-of-pocket investment that the worker made when he or she took the risk in seeking an education without a guarantee of a job.

Anyway I don't think the salaries being asked for are too out-of-line. These corporations are asking for more H-1Bs so they can take advantage advantage of cheaper education subsidized by foreign nations.

I find it telling that you would sell out your own country because of some professional jealousy.

I can't help but notice that you're attacking a technical field of which you don't seem to be a member. It's pretty noble of you to sell out that job sector because you seem to have chosen an engineering field with less demand. It is quite apparent that you are envious of their demand. You'd think that when demand outstrips supply that the wages should actually increase. It would be a worker's market. The corporations are undercutting that market by importing cheap labor.

Also if it was true that your 8-year old could perform the same job then you'd think these same corporations would lower the educational requirements and pay them a much lower salary appropriate for their low-skill position. Of course, we all know this isn't the case. The corporations are asking for "highly skilled" labor with educational requirements therefore they should pay market price for that labor especially to makeup the out-of-pocket investment that the worker made when he or she took the risk in seeking an education without a guarantee of a job.

Anyway I don't think the salaries being asked for are too out-of-line. These corporations are asking for more H-1Bs so they can take advantage advantage of cheaper education subsidized by foreign nations.

I find it telling that you would sell out your own country because of some professional jealousy.

Actually, I think the reason that companies don't hire 8 year olds is that their hiring requirements typically demand 10 years experience in a 2-year old technology. And it's simply amazing how many outsourcing companies say they can deliver that. And how many employers will immediately put in an order based on that assertion.

Americans generally do not want to do STEM degrees, which many other cultures value more highly than we do.

But which came first, the chicken or the egg?

It's hardly surprising that most Americans aren't interested in STEM degrees when these jobs are constantly under attack by H-1Bs and offshoring. Whenever businesses bitch about wages going up in STEM, the government steps in to bring in more indentured guest workers. In contrast, medical school graduation has remained constant since the 1980s [nytimes.com] at about 16,000 a year, and physician wages have consequently remained very high and continued to outpace inflation. Given the choice, why should an intelligent young person in America select STEM over medicine or business? Somehow the central tenets of our capitalist religion – like the notion that you get more of what you incentivize – seem to be forgotten with all this BS about "worker shortages".

Americans generally do not want to do STEM degrees, which many other cultures value more highly than we do.

I'm an American grad student in a STEM Ph.D. program right now. It's not hard to see why Americans don't want to do STEM degrees. There's little to no employment opportunities, and what little jobs there are don't pay significantly more than what you could get with a non-STEM bachelor's degree. I've lost count of how many friends I've seen get their STEM Ph.D. and then go into jobs like bartending, retail, fast food, etc. or, at best, community college teaching because there were almost no post-docs or research positions available and their Ph.D. made them "overqualified" for jobs that would have been more of a lateral move. In fact, they only got the jobs they did by omitting the Ph.D. from their resume.

I'm strongly considering just dropping out with a Masters' degree, because several students who did that (because they failed a qualifying exam) left and had no trouble finding jobs that paid well--though even some of them had to omit the Masters from their resume.

Let me give you a hint, if you're getting your PhD so you can 'get a good job', you don't understand what you're doing.

You get a PhD in a field because you're retardedly in love with the field to the point that you don't care about being amazingly wasteful and throwing away large sums of time and money JUST to learn more about the subject. Ph.Ds are ENTIRELY ACADEMIC EXERCISES with VERY LITTLE PRACTICAL VALUE in almost every case when they don't entirely revolve around an almost unhealthy obsession with learning more about a specific subject for your own personal enjoyment. A precious few people are actually doing PhD programs that will be more than a way for the school to rape them.

Yes, the leaders of the fields have PhDs. The PhDs had nothing to do with making them leaders in their fields, they are simply artifacts associated with that type of person. The PhD doesn't make the man, they just are side effects of the process.

If you get a PhD because of what job it might land you, you are either in Academia or wasting your time. Its probably because a bunch of people who haven't ever had a real job outside of Academia told you it was 'required', but that doesn't make it any better. Might as well ask your insurance sales man if you need insurance.

Skilled trades, actual physical skill trades. Welding, fabrication, millwright, crane operator, etc. there are so many open jobs for people with training, skills, certifications/licenses. Problem is for the last two decades we have been pushing everyone to go get a 4 year degree to get a cushy office job. the reality is there are only so many of them, in the end someone has to go out in the field and do the work.

This kind of tracks my thoughts but I would go much farther. If these H1B visa holders are so critical to a company then it would only seem to make sense that they should be the highest compensated (total compensation including benefits, company provided transportation, stock options, golden parachutes, etc) individuals in the company. Make that law and then we can see how many are actually needed.

And there you have the crux of the problem. The U.S. absolutely refuses to enforce the laws behind H1-B visa. As a matter of fact we don't NEED more laws about H1-B enforcement. We simply need to enforce the laws that are there.

Immigration is good for everyone, though especially for immigrants. Immigrants experience massive wage gains just by stepping over an imaginary line. Nations that receive immigrants receive solid overall growth benefits.

H1-B visas never fail to bring out the nationalist grief on/.. There is a fallacy that there is a set amount of technology work to do, and if you increase the labor supply, that makes everyone worse off. The labor supply is actually endogenous to the demand for labor. More skilled labor

Wouldn't it make more sense for Zuckerberg to lobby the US government to restrict the amount of H1B visas going to overseas outsourcing firms? Because if they just raise the limit these overseas outsourcing firms will just gobble up more H1B visas and Zuck and company won't be better off for it.

As an immigrant who was once on an H1B, I completely agree with you. Here's the deal: I went to grad school in the U.S., and took up a job in R&D after graduating. My goal, after graduating, was to be part of this country, contribute to its economy and its culture.

It is hard to say this without sounding elitist, but on some level, painting those who have pursued advanced degrees in this country and for those who are nothing more than warm bodies from IT body shops as being unfair.

Since then, I have started three companies, one of which was reasonably successful. I married an American girl, bought a house and settled down, and I would like to believe that I have genuinely contributed positively to this economy.

However, here is the irony of it all: it is far easier for a guy from Infosys or Tata to get an H1B than it would be if I graduated from Stanford with a Ph.D. and wanted to start my own company. The system is so flawed that if I do not have the sponsorship of a big corporation, it is harder for me to get an H1B than a poor Cobol code monkey from India, despite having graduated with an advanced degree from here.

In contrast, most of those people get low paying jobs pumping out mediocre code, and often end up going back to India with substantial savings. While I can certainly understand their position, they live in their own cultural bubbles and are often not interested in full integrating culturally because they know they aren't settling down here.

And is IT the only area that really needs people? What about other areas, where people with advanced degrees from the universities of this country can get jobs? Biotech, chem engineering, manufacturing, aeronautical -- you name it. Either limit the program so that it is easier for people to immigrate and integrate, or make the program truly be for talented people who should be part of this country's economy./rant

My sister-in-law has been living in the United States for the past six years. She has a pair of masters in Mathematics and Economics and after graduation 2 years ago a good job, making about 50k a year. Yet she stands a decent chance of deportation because she is now in a lotto for the H1B. Why exactly are we kicking out people with masters degrees and good jobs?

This is insanity. She had a good portion of her schooling supplemented by the US Government. She is now paying taxes and is a law-abiding citi

The thing that stands out to be from your statement is that your sister has 2!!! STEM based MAs and still only makes 50k. All sympathies for her, but I can understand why someone might complain that the market is being diluted and driving wages down.

Folks outside of major metropolitan areas make a little less. She wanted to live in a rural environment for her health and took a trade-off.

Heh. When she was in China, she was dying. Literally dying from the pollution / environment. About 82 pounds when she came over and losing weight every year. Came to the United States to a rural university, living as a grad student without two cents to rub together, and still put on weight.

Pulled herself up by her bootstraps. And now she's likely to get kicked out

Actually, she is kicking herself out. She was allowed to come here by accepting the condition that her stay could not exceed 6 years. Now the six years are up and it is time to fulfill the final condition of her original entry permit. It's sad, but she chose this option.

We're in a period of unemployment. The fact she has a $50k job and is paying taxes is nice, but if she leaves perhaps someone already here will get the job, make $50k (or more) a year, pay taxes, and stop getting unemployment insurance pay

Because we have americans who have masters degrees that can take that job. It amazes me who people who werent born here feel they have a right to come and go as they please and any hinderance is 'stupid' and 'doesnt make sense'.

You responded to a comment that addressed it, then claimed you didn't mention it, when you directly replied to a comment that mentioned it

Putting aside the redundancy in your sentence, replying to a comment that mentioned "claims" does not mean that I mentioned "claims", because I did not address that specific part of your post. It actually is possible to make more than one point in a post. Even trickier: sometimes I make obvious inferences.

And even quoted it

Yes, believe it or not it's actually possible to make more than one point, even in a single sentence! That's even more true when the sentence involves an obvious implication. However, a sentence fragment n

Being precise about terminology can help a discussion, especially when words have specific legal definitions. A major problem with immigration discussions is that people use terms incorrectly and don't make important distinctions. People don't understand the differences between asylum seekers, refugees, the many different kinds of work visa holders, and so on, and they don't understand the criteria for entry or the entitlements for each category, so they form opinions based on misinformation.

You realize that foreign students fund the American education system, right? They don't get government-backed loans. They pay the full price out of their pocket.

They pay a higher price than many students because they pay out-of-state tuition rates, but they certainly don't pay the full cost out of their own pocket. The taxpayer is still kicking in the difference just like they pay the difference for any other out-of-state student.

And when you consider graduate students, they typically get stipends from either grants or state money (taxpayers), so they are paying no more for their education than any other out-of-state grad student, and since some universities clas

I am honestly puzzled and hope that someone could explain. Supposedly there were some reforms in the process around 2000 which fixed most of the problems with H1Bs. I am led to understand that they did not, but it's hard to find a good explanation of exactly why those reforms didn't help enough. Wikipedia has a vague explanation of "However, many people are ineligible to file I-485 at the current time due to the widespread retrogression in priority dates" which I find completely incomprehensible. Can an

That costs more money than lobbying Congress to change the rules in their favor. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders *not* to fund education if there is a cheaper way to fill up the cube farm.

Zuckerberg didn't start his own company, he graduated college and got a job as a software developer.

Zuckerberg PU: "Corporations lobbying the government to import cheap labor from the third world is unethical. It amounts to indentured servitude and it does nothing but lower wages for the local workforce. It is but a scheme to let the rich grow richer and reduce the middle class to menial labor serfs."

No doubt Zuckerberg wants more slave labor to pay the tax base that he and his corp. are evading. I have a better idea Mark, move your ass and everyone else to an impoverished nation. No doubt you'll enjoy the infrastructure, benefits, gov't, and protection that all affords you.

Provided they're legally and actually immigrating, and not just stopping by temporarily to make a quick buck. Our enconomy is already hurting and unemployment is high, we don't need leeches stopping in to steal our jobs then running off to spend the money elsewhere.

I consider H1-B's to be very problematic because of how dependent they make someone on an employer. I think there's a real risk of the employer employee relationship becoming too coercive and akin to slavery.

But, I have no problem with more immigration if the result is full citizens with the same rights as everybody else.

Perhaps we should have an accelerated citizenship process for people who've been here on an H1-B visa for over a year. That, in combination with actually reducing the number of H1-B visas

If job candidates are SOOOO hard to find, then the law should require corporations to pay a tax equivalent to 30% of the H1-B candite's salary - to be used to fund unemployment. This would have the effect of making the H1-B process work as intended - by making H1-B candidates less economical than local talent, they would be hired only when local talent can't be found. After all the stated objective of the law is to obtain locally un-obtainable talent - not to drive down wages.

True. Americans don't hate wealth - they hate getting screwed. Zuckerberg has $9.3B. Good for him, but does he have to be so greedy as to screw Americans so he can hire help for a few bucks less?

Nor does the "business exists solely to make a profit" justify it. Thanks to Facebook's dual-class stock structure, Zuckerberg has 57% of the voting rights even after the IPO. Nobody can question his decisions. The board can't threaten to get rid of him if they don't like this quarters earnings. So when he pushes

Let's see how successful the biggest industry is at getting the laws they want implemented in government.

what's the usual opinion then on the street? "we don't want european immigrants" ? yet the border is flowing with manual labor immigrants? why is it so easy to be an illegal alien but hard to be a tax paying legal alien?

If you're really pro-immigrant, then you would want them coming here as free men and women, not as indentured servants. These immigrants aren't being offered a leg up, they're being used and exploited.

This has nothing to do with folks who want to move to the US because: they want religious freedom or to escape tyranny or because they want to live in the Western Hemisphere for health reasons.

You see, this is about exploitation., for one. And this is also about labor market manipulation. Increase supply of workers while demand stays the same and what happens?

As has been said many times, the wages of developers and other IT professionals do not indicate a shortage of any kind. Wages haven't gone anywhere in over ten years and if you factor in inflation, they have gone DOWN.

If any employer is having a hard time finding qualified people, then there is something horribly dysfunctional in their recruiting process. Either they are not getting the word out to attract the right candidates or they are unrealistic in regards to the qualifications or salaries for said qualifications that they demand - hence the market manipulation with H1-Bs and immigration reform.

If they were trying to get a Ph.D in some esoteric CS field that very few people study, then I would possibly buy into that maybe they need a foreign born worker.

But for a developer? Please, spare me.

And the funny thing is, the biggest noise makers are folks out in Silicon Valley. Hello! Lockheed just canned a bunch of folks - very talented and qualified folks - who are looking for work. Folks that have worked on things that make your pathetic little "social networking" software look like child's play - so don't BS us with the "they don't have the skills"!

Have you thought of moving out of the high tax state of California and move to the low cost South? There are folks here just as smart as you folks who can make a nice living on $70,000 doing whatever you need.

If "programmers" were overpaid and arrogant wouldn't a large group of people want to go out and become programmers because it is easy and highly paid.
That hasn't been the case for the last 10 years and that is why salaries are going up. The market is now just adjusting itself,people are realizing Computer Science could be a good field to be in. If salaries do not stay that way, then people are going into other fields.
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/print-edition/2012/01/27/number-of-computer-grads-on- [bizjournals.com]

Does not include anybody who has switched to waiting tables because they have to make ends meet. Of course most of those people will never get another SWE job because of the prejudice that says anybody who has been out of the field for a year or two must not be any good. Hellooo! Have any of the hiring geniuses who take this attitude been out in the job market lately? I've known lots of very good people who were out of work for that long. This is about perceptions and prejudice, not quality.

Sure, I'd have no problem hiring them away from another company if they want to leave, but that does zero to solve the resource shortage.

Yes, it does. It's based on a principle called a "market". The idea is that if a "resource" (formerly known as skilled people) is in short supply, then the price will rise. Hence more people will enter that market, and the "shortage" will disappear. I know it's a radical idea, but it just might work.

Please note that this response is not always instantaneous, particularly when dealing with a "resource" that may require years of education. Unfortunately many of our tech "leaders" have tantrums when they don't get what they want immediately. They figure that since they can fire as many people as they want at a moment's notice, they should be able to hire as many people with specialized skills as they want at a moment's notice. If this is not possible they suddenly turn socialist and ask the government for help. Once satisfied by the government's largesse, they immediately revert to being capitalists.

An interesting history lesson: at one time many tech and business leaders seem to have more emotional maturity than a five year old, and were less prone to throwing tantrums. Old fashioned folks opine that this was because they were taught by a mommy government that didn't immediately give in to every demand. Many of these leaders learned to fend for themselves more, just like grownups! For example, knowing that large numbers of highly skilled people couldn't be hired at a moment's notice, they would retain many of the skilled people they had hired, even when business wasn't great. In the short term this reduced their company's profits, but like mature people they were willing to make that sacrifice for the delayed gratification of having those people available when business improved. For example, IBM instituted a no layoffs policy in the midst of the Great Depression. Note to younger readers: as hard as it may be to believe, this is actual history, not a fairy tale.